Why receive in the hand?

[FrDavid96]

I understand your comment that it would be wrong to lessen your personal devotion and reverence towards the Eucharist.

I live in Canada, and when I received my First Communion, I was taught to receive on the hand. It is customary where I live to receive on the hand. My very well-formed parish priest instructs for reception on the hand. My Spiritual Director is a LC priest, and when asked if I need to consider receiving on the tongue, has stated that it is not necessary for me to change. Try as I might, I feel very unnatural receiving on the tongue. It is a huge distraction for me to try to change, and I am not sure I need to do so.

I cannot imagine having more reverence for our Lord than I already do in receiving His body!

imho

Your spiritual director is absolutely right. There’s nothing “wrong” with receiving in the hand and it is not necessary for you to change, (as long as that option is still available–and it is)

Speaking in very broad terms, receiving on the tongue is the more reverent form. The Church does say this. But when the Church says that, that’s from the point-of-view of comparing the overall practices, and not, I repeat not, a commentary on any individual person.

 

[otjm]

For the correction on the Mother Teresa’s quote, go to this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=276477&highlight=rutler and read post #5.

Thank you for finding that; my research ability is still better in paper than on computer. I should have known better when I saw it and copied it off; trying to find it again gives me fits.

And this is another example of why hearsay is not admiited in court…

 

[pnewton]

Speaking in very broad terms, receiving on the tongue is the more reverent form. The Church does say this. But when the Church says that, that’s from the point-of-view of comparing the overall practices, and not, I repeat not, a commentary on any individual person.

Excellent. Let me add that my post above is for me only and was intended to answer the OP. I would by no means recommend it as a generalization for others to follow. But then I have the baggage of not being raised Catholic. Heck, I even bow my head during all the Eucharistic Prayers.

 

[Cat]

I would consider myself sacriligious if I ever received in the hand (or standing) again. I deeply regret the times that I, out of “convenience” or “for the sake of unity”, received in the hand and/or standing- or encouraged others to do so. Acolytes and Deacons may distribute communion if need be, and the Church has allowed lay people to be commissioned EMHC’s. I am strongly opposed to this practice, and hope that this practice will end someday. Only the priests and bishops should do this- only their hands have been consecrated. I believe that, ideally, a person should not touch the Sacred Host until they lift it at the Consecration at their first Mass.

Could you please discuss the theological basis for a person to be “consecrated,” or for a person’s hands to be consecrated, before receiving Holy Communion?

Why do the hands of a human being have to be “consecrated”, but not the tongue, teeth, throat, etc.

Is there Catholic dogma describing the “consecration” status required for receiving Holy Communion? Could you please cite the source of the dogma?

Why was the woman in the New Testament who was healed of the issue of blood allowed to touch Our Lord, even though she was cermonially “unclean” (unconsecrated?), and why did touching Him “cleanse” her?

I know that we are to be in a state of Grace, and that any mortal sins must be absolved in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. A state of Grace is not the same as consecration, is it?

What exactly is “consecration of the hands?” What does this mean? And again, why the “hands” but not the tongue?

I’m sorry and I mean no disrespect to the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, Whom I love and adore, but I don’t buy this idea of “consecration of the hands” necessary to receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Communion. I can see the need for a consecration if we are actually taking care of His Body by transferring His Body from a tabernacle to a monstrance, or by preparing His Body for repose after Holy Communion.

That makes sense to me. I think of the following analogy. A nurse is “consecrated” to perform care-giving for a patient.

BUT…a visitor can touch (embrace, kiss, etc.) the patient without being “consecrated.”

It doesn’t make sense to say that hands but not the tongue must be “consecrated” to receive Him in Holy Communion and I would like to see the doctrinal justification behind this thinking. Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

Could you please discuss the theological basis for a person to be “consecrated,” or for a person’s hands to be consecrated, before receiving Holy Communion?

Why do the hands of a human being have to be “consecrated”, but not the tongue, teeth, throat, etc.

Is there Catholic dogma describing the “consecration” status required for receiving Holy Communion? Could you please cite the source of the dogma?

Why was the woman in the New Testament who was healed of the issue of blood allowed to touch Our Lord, even though she was cermonially “unclean” (unconsecrated?), and why did touching Him “cleanse” her?

I know that we are to be in a state of Grace, and that any mortal sins must be absolved in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. A state of Grace is not the same as consecration, is it?

What exactly is “consecration of the hands?” What does this mean? And again, why the “hands” but not the tongue?

I’m sorry and I mean no disrespect to the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, Whom I love and adore, but I don’t buy this idea of “consecration of the hands” necessary to receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Communion. I can see the need for a consecration if we are actually taking care of His Body by transferring His Body from a tabernacle to a monstrance, or by preparing His Body for repose after Holy Communion.

That makes sense to me. I think of the following analogy. A nurse is “consecrated” to perform care-giving for a patient.

BUT…a visitor can touch (embrace, kiss, etc.) the patient without being “consecrated.”

It doesn’t make sense to say that hands but not the tongue must be “consecrated” to receive Him in Holy Communion and I would like to see the doctrinal justification behind this thinking. Thank you.

The hands of the priest are indeed “consecrated” at his ordination (they are anointed with the Sacred Chrism, so it’s not consecrated in the usual sense of the word though).

At the same time, the deacon (whose hands are not blessed in any specific rite) has always been a minister of distributing Communion (in the past, he was an extraordinary minister though).

Having said that though: that isn’t the point. Repeat, that’s not the point.

The real problems with allowing people to receive in the hand has nothing to do with which parts of a person’s anatomy have been blessed or not blessed.

It’s more of a practical issue. Receiving in the hand opens the possibility that the Host might be dropped (especially if the communicant is carrying something or someone), that there might remain consecrated particles of the Host on the persons hand, that the person’s hands might not be clean (I do not mean some kind of “ritually unclean” but literally unclean).
It also opens the possibility that the one receiving might not do so with an exterior reverence due to the Sacrament. People often walk away, casually “popping” the Eucharist into their mouths with as much reverence as a breath mint. That’s not to say it always happens, but it does happen and often. Further, it makes it easy for someone who wants to remove the Eucharist from the church to do so.

Those are the real issues (and that’s not an exhaustive list by any means).

However a person receives Holy Communion, it must be done with reverence and dignity. That applies equally to either form of receiving.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The hands of the priest are indeed “consecrated” at his ordination (they are anointed with the Sacred Chrism, so it’s not consecrated in the usual sense of the word though).

**Not in the Byzantine ordinal.

Furthermore, according to the clarification made by Pius XII, the Sacrament of Orders for Deacon, Priest, and Bishop in ALL the Catholic Churches and rites is conferred not by anointment or any other ceremony, but by the laying on of hands of the ordaining bishop.**

 

[Aramis]

One is not “daring” to receive in the hand. It was good enough for Christ, the Apostles, and more than several generations of Catholics after that.

It also has been one of the practices in the Armenian and Syriac Rites since the early days of the church.

It is a quick, and yet still usually reverent method of distibuting communion.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This is just an observation…

…Traditional Catholic shut down for a couple of weeks, and now the Liturgy and Sacraments section is full of threads such as these.

On topic: Our priest and EMHC use hand sanitizer before they administer the Eucharist. However, what is to stop them from picking up the germs of others if they were to place the Eucharist on the tongue of every individual who receives?

If this is going to be deployed, I rather like the Eastern long iced teaspoon with the white cloth draped underneath.

 

[FrDavid96]

The hands of the priest are indeed “consecrated” at his ordination (they are anointed with the Sacred Chrism, so it’s not consecrated in the usual sense of the word though).

**Not in the Byzantine ordinal.

Furthermore, according to the clarification made by Pius XII, the Sacrament of Orders for Deacon, Priest, and Bishop in ALL the Catholic Churches and rites is conferred not by anointment or any other ceremony, but by the laying on of hands of the ordaining bishop.**

Was someone disputing the validity of ordination? I must have missed that part.

You missed the sentence following that paragraph. Here it is again:
“Having said that though: that isn’t the point. Repeat, that’s not the point.”

 

[Ceil-1]

The last time I took it on the tongue, the Host literally “jumped” off it onto the floor. I simply scooped the Sacred Host and consumed it.

This happened to me before when I have taken it from a priest who clearly does not want to do so. Then again, I have brushed
against their fingers. I do not blame myself for this.

In medieval times, they did not know about germs. Prior to that, the head of the household would take the Sacred Species home with him for the week, crumbs and all.

I am pretty sure there are pious individuals who wouldn’t think of taking Communion in the hand who will be behind other individuals who are taking Communion in the hand, but have love in their heart for the Lord and their neighbors. \

I know several people who would fit both descriptions. I think it is one of those cases of an evil being couched in a good thing, because of the lack of charity to one’s neighbor it evokes.

 

[otjm]

It’s more of a practical issue. Receiving in the hand opens the possibility that the Host might be dropped (especially if the communicant is carrying something or someone), that there might remain consecrated particles of the Host on the persons hand, that the person’s hands might not be clean (I do not mean some kind of “ritually unclean” but literally unclean).

Three issues; lets take them one at a time.

1)having been an altar boy well before Vatican 2 came a long, I can speak from practical experience and my observations (which at this point is a whole lot more time watching Communion in the hand than on the tongue by the majority of people) that exceedingly far more instances occured of a Host dropping when receiving on the tongue than when receiving in the hand. I can recall one instance when receiving in the hand resulted in a dropped host; I had multiple times of catching one on the paten long ago, seeing it dropped when I wasn’t serving, and seeing the occasional dropped Host that wasn’t caught by the paten - either because priest and server were moving too fast down the line, or because it hit the paten and fell off/rolled off. I have yet to meet anyone who has literally seen repeated instances of the Host falling out of someone’s hand. As to carrying a child, people who are doing so at Communion seem largely to receive on the tongue, making it a non-issue, or receive in the hand and consume it without switching hands. In short, it is a non-issue as people have much more control over something in their hand, which they can then pick up and place in their own mouth, than they do with something that is stuck onto their tongue, may get flicked off by the teeth, or not be on a sufficient amount of tongue (in other words, on the tip) that it falls off of its own accord. This issue is brought up constantly with no evidence that it is any more likely to cause a dropped Host; only “It might…”.

1. Particles: the only time I have had a particle has been from the Host that was split off the larger Host the priest consecrated, and that has been rare. Catechesis pretty much resolves the issue. Hosts in general do not leave many particles. And that doesn’t even account for the altar server who doesn’t accurately place the paten, or moves too quickly; at least if the Host is in my hand, the particles are under my control; if it is on my tongue then particles are apt to end up on my shirt front. Given the choice, I am much more able to deal with the former, rather than the latter. And my understanding is that a particle that is so small that it cannot be identified as coming from the Host is in theology understood to no longer have the Real Presence.
2. given the known microbe load on the average hand as opposed to the load in the mouth, the mouth is far more unclean. That is simply a non-issue.

It also opens the possibility that the one receiving might not do so with an exterior reverence due to the Sacrament. People often walk away, casually “popping” the Eucharist into their mouths with as much reverence as a breath mint. That’s not to say it always happens, but it does happen and often. Further, it makes it easy for someone who wants to remove the Eucharist from the church to do so.

Which goes to catechesis, not praxis. It is not a whole lot less easy to have it in one’s mouth by whatever means and remove it if one is intent on evil.

The largest problem we have is not Communion in the hand; it is catechesis. Instead of looking at the symptoms, we need to start addressing what the real issue is. People were just as casual at the old form of the mass in the 1950’s and early 60’s as they are now. Casualness has been repeatedly described to those who go to the OF as if it didn’t exist before the OF; and it usually seems that it is being so described by those who were born about the time the changes were made, or since then. Humanity has not changed a whole lot in the last few centuries; some people are casual; others are focused. As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be until the Second Coming. It really helps to focus on what the problem is, and not on what is a symptom, or what happens to be occuring while the problem is existing. Reverence is a state of mind which may be shown in small or large things, or both; but the showing of the small or large things is not necessarily indicative of reverence or lack of it.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Reverence is a state of mind which may be shown in small or large things, or both; but the showing of the small or large things is not necessarily indicative of reverence or lack of it.

I believe that if you re-read my posts, you’ll see that this is the very point I’m trying to make.

Objectively, receiving on the tongue is the more reverent option.
By no means does this imply that everyone receiving in the hand is irreverent, or everyone receiving on the tongue is reverent (that’s what I’ve been saying all along).

 

[Lepanto]

MEMORIALE DOMINI: Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion. Issued by by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969.

This is the document which opened the possibility of communion in the hand in the first place. Its wording shows that the universal norm is reception on the tongue. “When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”

Then further in the document it says: “The new method [hand] of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage…”

And it also says: “This method of distributing holy communion [tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.”

In addition, it says: “Further, the practice which must be considered traditional [tongue] ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”

Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”

Source:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

 

[debraran]

I also read in a book about Mother Theresa years ago, by a man that followed her around for a while to see her life and work. He said the quote about communion wasn’t true. She told him a lot of quotes are given as hers and they aren’t, but taking them back after they take on a life of their own is hard. She did want that to be known though…she would never go against any teaching of the church.

I also hear people say that EWTN doesn’t allow it which isn’t true…you have to dressed properly but many people take communion in the hand. One mass, it seemed at least half, although I’m sure that varies. I’ve watched masses in Rome, and many of them have communion in the hand. World Youth Day was the same…even masses in the Vatican. Maybe private masses are different, but I have seen masses with the Pope where quite a few people take the eucharist that way. When one side wants to change the flow and lies to get their point across, that isn’t right. People aren’t just going to change overnight, many feel awkward doing it that way, some have personal or medical reasons…as long as the reverence is there, I don’t see a problem with it.

 

[RosaryFan]

Why not just receive Him on the tongue?

Why on earth would anyone even presume to dare take Him in the hand? Just because they can?

Reception on the tongue is the preferred, normative method. I’d be happy to share the numerous Church documents that say so if you’d like.

I completely agree with Lepanto. I received in the hand for a little while and never really felt comfortable doing so (it’s amazing how sometimes that inner voice knows so much more than the outer one). Then I read the story of Sr. Agnes and Our Lady of Akita. Sr. Agnes saw a vision of all the Angels prostrating themselves before the Host. She wondered how she could ever consider herself worthy enough to touch our Lord after seeing how these perfect Angels adored Him. She got her entire order to receive only on the tongue after that. That was certainly enough to turn me around.

 

[RosaryFan]

…as long as the reverence is there, I don’t see a problem with it.

Sadly, the reverence is not there.

 

[debraran]

I go to a very reverent Dominican church (I’m lucky there) where about 40% receive on the tongue, the rest don’t. The priest gave instruction once on the reverent way to receive on the hand, to cup the host, make a cradle with your hands, etc. I know some people want to do awful things with the host, but they can “steal” it in the mouth too…saw that as a kid. Reverence is in your heart, not your mouth or your hand.

 

[Lepanto]

I completely agree with Lepanto. I received in the hand for a little while and never really felt comfortable doing so (it’s amazing how sometimes that inner voice knows so much more than the outer one). Then I read the story of Sr. Agnes and Our Lady of Akita. Sr. Agnes saw a vision of all the Angels prostrating themselves before the Host. She wondered how she could ever consider herself worthy enough to touch our Lord after seeing how these perfect Angels adored Him. She got her entire order to receive only on the tongue after that. That was certainly enough to turn me around.

All of the members of the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s congregation), receive only on the tongue. This is by Mother Teresa herself.

 

[Lepanto]

DOMINICAE CENAE: On the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II to all the Bishops of the Church on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist. Issued by Pope John Paul II on February 24, 1980.

John Paul II indicates that hand is a new practice and is licit only in some countries: “In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See.”

Moreover, he does not appear to be in favor of taking by the hand: “However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to.”

Source:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Before he was Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a book, God is Near Us.

Below are a few excerpts from that book.

“Well, first of all, I would like to say that both attitudes are possible, and I would like therefore, to ask all priests to exercise tolerance and to recognize the decision of each person; and I would further like to ask you to exercise the same tolerance and not to cast aspersions on anyone who may have opted for this or that way of doing it…”

“But you will ask: is tolerance the proper answer here? Or is it not misplaced with respect to this most holy thing? Well, here again we know that until the nineth century Communion was received in the hand standing… the Church could not have possibly been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years.”

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.